| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 72/02 |
| Hearing date | 7 Jun 2002 |
| Determination date | 16 July 2002 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | RA Cotton ( In person) ; G Watson |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Cotton v IT Watson Ltd t/a Fresh Choice Richmond |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Poor performance - Absenteeism - 2 warnings issued before dismissal for unexplained absences - Initial verbal warning given without necessary formalities - Failed to give consequences of further absenteeism - Final warning procedurally fair - Procedural unfairness of initial warning rendered dismissal unjustified - Remedies - No award for reimbursement - Applicant had not sought further employment - Failed to mitigate loss - Contributory conduct - Unexplained absences contributed to grievance - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Failure to provide employment agreement - Alleged failure led to warnings - Clear evidence applicant was made aware that absenteeism breached policy before warnings given - Disadvantage claim not established |
| Result | Application granted (Unjustified dismissal) ; Application dismissed (Unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($1,000) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee) |
| Cases Cited | NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever NZ Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |